(no subject)
Jan. 28th, 2004 07:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
c9Today the Canadian government announced that they are expanding their reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on same-sex marriage: adding one question, asking whether the opposite-sex restriction on civil marriage is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This will have no effect on the outcome: same-sex marriage will be legal in Canada, nationwide, eventually. But it boils down to another year waiting; there will likely be no judgement before 2005, at the earliest.
This rots my socks, because it's the government chickening out on an issue of basic human rights. Because the original hearings were to begin during the expected election campaign in April, Paul Martin decided to hide the issue and win an election before it actually comes into the press again. I feel that Martin made a cowardly choice.
This also makes me happy, because if it had come up during the election, the Reform-Alliance-tories would have made hay (and major votes) with their campaigning against the idea, including threats to use the notwithstanding clause and other such tools of discrimination. I also feel Martin did make a logical choice.
Argh!![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
leapfish and I are getting married in Ottawa on May 23rd. It's awfully frustrating to have large portions of one's country really peeved by something that's none of their business.
This will have no effect on the outcome: same-sex marriage will be legal in Canada, nationwide, eventually. But it boils down to another year waiting; there will likely be no judgement before 2005, at the earliest.
This rots my socks, because it's the government chickening out on an issue of basic human rights. Because the original hearings were to begin during the expected election campaign in April, Paul Martin decided to hide the issue and win an election before it actually comes into the press again. I feel that Martin made a cowardly choice.
This also makes me happy, because if it had come up during the election, the Reform-Alliance-tories would have made hay (and major votes) with their campaigning against the idea, including threats to use the notwithstanding clause and other such tools of discrimination. I also feel Martin did make a logical choice.
Argh!
leapfish and I are getting married in Ottawa on May 23rd. It's awfully frustrating to have large portions of one's country really peeved by something that's none of their business.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-01-29 02:51 am (UTC)The Liberals never pretended that they supported gay marriage as an independent political idea. They've only ever purported to support it as a reaction to the anticipated Supreme Court interpretation of the Charter.
But they didn't put the right question to the Supreme Court to get them there. They said "Hey, we're gonna do gay marriage--is that OK?" But that was never going to put them in the position of being "forced into it," which is the only way that it's going to be politically viable.
Now they're effectively asking, "Does the Charter force us into gay marriage?" If the Supreme Court answers that the way everyone thinks it will, the Liberals will be in the best position they could hope for--not voluntarily introducing gay marriage, but not resisting it either.
The risk for the supporters of gay marriage is that they won't be forced into it, that the SCC will take soe middle ground. Then, the political minefield is open again.
I really think that has more to do with it than election strategy. That might be a nice side effect, but anyone who thinks that gay marriage won't be a major issue in this election, either way, is delusional.